Pinker on Scientific Literacy

This past weekend in a review of Natalie Angier's new book Steven Pinker wrote something I'd like to share with you (below the fold):

A baby sucks on a pencil and her panicky mother fears the child will get lead poisoning. A politician argues that hydrogen can replace fossil fuels as our nation's energy source. A consumer tells a reporter that she refuses to eat tomatoes that have genes in them. And a newsmagazine condemns the prospects of cloning because it could mass-produce an army of zombies.

These are just a few examples of scientific illiteracy -- inane misconceptions that could have been avoided with a smidgen of freshman science. (For those afraid to ask: pencil "lead" is carbon; hydrogen fuel takes more energy to produce than it releases; all living things contain genes; a clone is just a twin.) Though we live in an era of stunning scientific understanding, all too often the average educated person will have none of it. People who would sneer at the vulgarian who has never read Virginia Woolf will insouciantly boast of their ignorance of basic physics. Most of our intellectual magazines discuss science only when it bears on their political concerns or when they can portray science as just another political arena. As the nation's math departments and biotech labs fill up with foreign students, the brightest young Americans learn better ways to sue one another or to capitalize on currency fluctuations. And all this is on top of our nation's endless supply of New Age nostrums, psychic hot lines, creationist textbook stickers and other flimflam.

The costs of an ignorance of science are not just practical ones like misbegotten policies, forgone cures and a unilateral disarmament in national competitiveness. There is a moral cost as well. It is an astonishing fact about our species that we understand so much about the history of the universe, the forces that make it tick, the stuff it's made of, the origin of living things and the machinery of life. A failure to nurture this knowledge shows a philistine indifference to the magnificent achievements humanity is capable of, like allowing a great work of art to molder in a warehouse.

Yup.

More like this

Mr. Zuska came home this evening, tired after a long week of work. We looked at each other and said "Pizza". Which turned out to be a good thing, because when the pizza delivery guy showed up and I went to pay him, I found a package on my front porch from the good folks at Seed (specifically,…
Last time I checked, Erma Bombeck, when she was alive, was a hugely popular American humorist who wrote a newspaper column and published 15 books, most of which were best sellers. She came from the working class, and made quite a successful career for herself in publishing, at a time when women…
One of my healthier, but alas more expensive habits, is that I walk a mile or so several times a week to my neighborhood shopping area and visit one or another bookstore. I live in a college town, so my neighborhood shopping area has some of the best bookstores anywhere. Not just a university…
I've only read the introduction to Natalie Angier's The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science but everyone else is blogging about it, and what I've read so far is so damn good that I'm going to add my precipitous two cents now. Angier has long been a favorite of mine, ever…

There is plenty of free hydrogen in the Sun, but my guess is it would take more energy to harvest then we would get out of it.

Jim RL wrote:

There is plenty of free hydrogen in the Sun, but my guess is it would take more energy to harvest then we would get out of it.

Not only that, we'd have to make sure we went at night when we harvested it.

I thought Pinker went a bit overboard with his examples, and then he criticized Angier for some of her metaphors. I think things are not quite so bleak -- people are potentially interested in science, but they're interested in a lot of other things too. So you have to make the science relevant to them.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

The biggest argument against evolution is that people remain stupid (and the argument against ID is that they were stupid to begin with).

Sorry, feeling cynical today.

Um...we could potentially generate enough hydrogen through solar-electric.

No, the real problem is corn based ethanol.